Navigate:

U.S. official: Sudan balks at Marine troop mission

WASHINGTON — Objections by Sudan's government have held up the security mission of an elite Marine team that the U.S. planned to send to Khartoum, a U.S. official said Saturday.

As a result, the deployment has been delayed and possibly curtailed, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to disclose details on the troop movement.

Text Size

The Marine unit, known as a fleet anti-terrorism security team, was ordered to Sudan in the wake of violence and protests against the U.S. Embassy.

Similar teams were sent to Libya on Wednesday after the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, and to Yemen on Friday

Demonstrators in Sudan stormed the German Embassy before moving on in buses to the U.S. Embassy, where police used tear gas to stop them scaling the walls. The protests were part of demonstrations across the Muslim world against an anti-Islam film.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Sudan's government "has recommitted itself both publicly and privately to continue to protect our mission," as obligated under the Vienna Convention. "We have requested additional security precautions as a result of yesterday's damage to our embassy. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely to ensure we have what we need to protect our people and facility."

Readers' Comments (7)

09/14/2012 14.09.2012 The World from Berlin 'Obama's Middle East Policy Is in Ruins'

""US President Barack Obama's Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It's a bitter outcome for Obama."

"Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali."

"One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America's deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.""

http://www.spiegel.de/i...

For al-Qaeda's attack on the U.S. consulate revenge

"The deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was an act of revenge for the killing of the number two of the terrorist network al-Qaida. According to SITE Al Qaeda declared in the Arabian Peninsula, the killing of al-Qaida deputy chiefs of the Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, in June in Pakistan have the "sons of (Libya's independence hero) Omar al-Mochtar" only fired properly and can take revenge on those "who attack our prophets.""

Why do we need German newspapers to honestly report what a failure Obama is?

If they don't let in our Marines to protect US sovereign territory why doesn't Obama cut off all foreign aid TODAY?

Why weren't our embassies protected on the aniversary of 9/11 after the US took out Bin Laden and the number two of Al Qaeda?

Can't everybody see what LIES Obama has been telling everybody about the lack of danger from Islam?

The US had actionable evidence of attacks days before the attacks occurred but President Obama was too busy campaigning, attending fundraisers and appearing on Letterman to attend security briefings. He didn't even cancel his campaign trip to Texas. Too bad for our ambassador and service men and women.

Obama admin has resulted in the demise of more mu slim terr rists the pat 3 years than any of this predecessors; including 23 of the 30 top Alqeda leaders (Bush only got 7 before) and Osama and Awlaki?

Given past performance I will trust his steady actions on this crisis as well, thank you. At least over those who speak first before having the full information on what is going on or who politicize the yet warm body of our ambassador.

(1) and (2) there is no planned foreign aid to Sudan. Actually, we were recently close to labeling the regime itself a terror sponsor until they agreed to let South Sudan go. Besides, you do not know what they are doing behind the scenes just like you didnt know when they ordered the raid on Osama or the 23 other terr'rists. Just let them do their jobs since they've been doing it better than the prior admin. Cheese Eater, German journalists have opinions just like ours. There are several American journalists that have written similar stuff blaming the admin or criticizing their response. Just like there are American journalists that believe the administration has responded appropriately and I am sure you will find German articles that say that as well. Dragging in foreign opinion doesn't make it true (false) just because it supports your mindset.

"As of 2010 the current allocation of U.S. foreign aid from USAID to Sudan is $420,349,319." USAID: The Humanitarian Situation in Sudan" . United States Agency for International Development. August 20, 2010. Retrieved April 11, 2011. Close to half a $billion hardly qualifies as "no" foreign aid.

That aid is going to humanitarian services in Sudan-- you would want to take away funding that helps to save what is very likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives who only survive because of the food and water and medical supplies that that aid purchases? Why should all of those in the refugee camps suffer because a few people don't want the marines in their capital? I think they should allow the marines in as well, but pulling funding from USAID just causes collateral damage.

Yes, I would cut it off. It is first and foremost the responsibility of our government to protect its citizeens at home and abroad. If we are prevented from doing so - we should not be there. If they want our financial aid (paid for by American tax dollars) there should be strings attached. I know it sounds harsh, but I am tired of the US taxpayer giving money to foreign nations who then slap us in the face. We could use that money here.